Trying to think of a good retort - Think Atheist2016-12-09T15:38:00Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/trying-to-think-of-a-good?feed=yes&xn_auth=noYou should invite Smiley as a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-19:1982180:Comment:1013172009-05-19T14:18:48.928ZLaurahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Lora
You should invite Smiley as a friend and post your message directly to her page. Frankly, if someone was trying to convert my friends on my facebook page, I'd delete it too. :)
You should invite Smiley as a friend and post your message directly to her page. Frankly, if someone was trying to convert my friends on my facebook page, I'd delete it too. :) Haha, Smiley posted her own c…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-18:1982180:Comment:1009932009-05-18T21:55:02.534ZJim Turnerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JimTurner
Haha, Smiley posted her own credo, which was rather sweet, and I then posted something like "I went through exactly what you're going through, 25years ago", summarizing my Christian experience and how I subsequently lost my religion. The guy who's page it is then deleted it, however - suddenly I'd got too evangelical :)
Haha, Smiley posted her own credo, which was rather sweet, and I then posted something like "I went through exactly what you're going through, 25years ago", summarizing my Christian experience and how I subsequently lost my religion. The guy who's page it is then deleted it, however - suddenly I'd got too evangelical :) :D :D :D
Thanks, I needed th…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-18:1982180:Comment:1008342009-05-18T14:47:04.489ZJim Turnerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JimTurner
:D :D :D<br />
<br />
Thanks, I needed that!
:D :D :D<br />
<br />
Thanks, I needed that! Good for you, Jim. Way to "wi…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-18:1982180:Comment:1008322009-05-18T14:45:39.232ZLaurahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Lora
Good for you, Jim. Way to "witness" for atheism. :)
Good for you, Jim. Way to "witness" for atheism. :) I think you are entitled to p…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-18:1982180:Comment:1008132009-05-18T13:51:35.543ZMisty: Baytheist Living!http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MMartin
I think you are entitled to put<br />
'boo-yah!' at the end<br />
Well done!
I think you are entitled to put<br />
'boo-yah!' at the end<br />
Well done! Yes I guessed this figure wou…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-18:1982180:Comment:1007802009-05-18T12:24:20.492ZJim Turnerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JimTurner
Yes I guessed this figure would be way off. I suppose he could argue it is still a majority, however. I think I dealt with his points ok though. Hopefully some of his 291 Facebook friends will now have some food for thought.
Yes I guessed this figure would be way off. I suppose he could argue it is still a majority, however. I think I dealt with his points ok though. Hopefully some of his 291 Facebook friends will now have some food for thought. OK here's what I came up with…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-18:1982180:Comment:1007722009-05-18T12:13:57.183ZJim Turnerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JimTurner
OK here's what I came up with to answer Kerby's 5 points (thanks to Atheist Ninja for the suggestion about the argumentum ad populum and Misty for the tip about Dr. Spock):<br />
<br />
"The core issue is whether god exists" - spot on. But your objective proofs are neither objective nor proofs.<br />
<br />
1) We are pattern seekers. We see a man in the moon, hear ghosts on creaky staircases, see archers and ploughs in the stars and horses' heads in the clouds. It often seems impossible to us that the world's…
OK here's what I came up with to answer Kerby's 5 points (thanks to Atheist Ninja for the suggestion about the argumentum ad populum and Misty for the tip about Dr. Spock):<br />
<br />
"The core issue is whether god exists" - spot on. But your objective proofs are neither objective nor proofs.<br />
<br />
1) We are pattern seekers. We see a man in the moon, hear ghosts on creaky staircases, see archers and ploughs in the stars and horses' heads in the clouds. It often seems impossible to us that the world's complexity could have arisen without a creator, but there is overwhelming evidence that it did. This does not mean that it became so complex by chance, but by minute changes in animals and plants over long periods of time which gave one a slight advantage over another in the ability to find a mate and pass on its genes.<br />
<br />
As for the origin of life, another experiment this week has pointed towards how that might have occurred:...<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?ref=global-home">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?ref=global-home</a><br />
<br />
***<br />
Quickie in between:<br />
Neither Dr. Spock nor his son committed suicide.<br />
<a href="http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drspock.asp">http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drspock.asp</a><br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
2) 95% of the world believes in a god, so therefore one or more must exist? Hmm, popularity = truth, also known as the Argumentum ad populum, dangerous ground there, Kerby. Meanwhile Islam is the fastest-growing religion worldwide. Is this the same god? Really?<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
3) What exactly has been proven historically, scientifically and archeologically with regard to the bible? That it was written in a certain era, by certain people? Perhaps. That parts of it are historically accurate? Perhaps (although all the references to Egypt and the Pharaohs are extremely dubious and are not supported by any archeological evidence). I’m not sure how you would go about proving the accuracy of some of the wackier bits of it – Adam and Eve followed by multiple generations of incest - initially with Eve – in order to create a viable population, Noah’s ark with its 2 by 2 (or was it 7 by 7?) animals, including presumably Tyrannosaurus Rexes, lions, crocodiles, komodos, anacondas, etc., all eating one another for 150 days, and then all living beings being descended from the remaining people and animals. Throughout the world. Including all the weird animals on islands such as Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, the Galapagos, etc., whose existence just happens to perfectly support evolution by natural selection. Job living Gepetto-style in a big fish?<br />
<br />
It is always easy to make certain types of prophesy fit the events after the fact. Ask a Jew and a Christian what Isaiah was prophesying about and you will get two very different answers. But there are hundreds if not thousands of prophesies in the bible which never came true. Let’s take one very big one – “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away, until all these things happen”. Many Christians interpret this as being the generation that was alive when Israel came into being in 1948. On what basis? As I understand it, a strict translation of ‘this generation’ could only be referring to the people alive at that moment, in AD 30. (Meanwhile the time is ticking on the mythical 1948 generation, and I wonder how long it will be before Christians have to give up re-interpreting the word ‘generation’ to mean longer and longer periods and come up with a new interpretation of this prophesy.)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
4) Another argumentum ad populum.<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum</a><br />
<br />
5) see my reply above, at 10.48 on 15 May, starting "a creator that makes his creation inherently flawed...".<br />
<br />
Hardly good, and hardly loving." Neither Dr. Spock nor his son…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-18:1982180:Comment:1007362009-05-18T08:17:40.202ZMisty: Baytheist Living!http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MMartin
Neither Dr. Spock nor his son committed suicide.<br />
<a href="http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drspock.asp">http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drspock.asp</a>
Neither Dr. Spock nor his son committed suicide.<br />
<a href="http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drspock.asp">http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drspock.asp</a> Very nice, Ninja :) and defin…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-18:1982180:Comment:1007302009-05-18T07:32:47.674ZJim Turnerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JimTurner
Very nice, Ninja :) and definitely short and pithy as requested! But as my objective in this debate is to get some of this guy's other friends thinking (he's basically a lost cause, but he 'ministers' to seekers of truth, agnostics and atheists) I don't think I can use anything quite this direct. Here's my response to his point 1, I'll be tackling 2-5 later as I have to get some work finished first:<br />
<br />
<br />
"The core issue is whether god exists" - spot on. But your objective proofs are neither…
Very nice, Ninja :) and definitely short and pithy as requested! But as my objective in this debate is to get some of this guy's other friends thinking (he's basically a lost cause, but he 'ministers' to seekers of truth, agnostics and atheists) I don't think I can use anything quite this direct. Here's my response to his point 1, I'll be tackling 2-5 later as I have to get some work finished first:<br />
<br />
<br />
"The core issue is whether god exists" - spot on. But your objective proofs are neither objective nor proofs.<br />
<br />
1) We are pattern seekers. We see a man in the moon, hear ghosts on creaky staircases, see archers and ploughs in the stars and horses' heads in the clouds. It often seems impossible to us that the world's complexity could have arisen without a creator, but there is overwhelming evidence that it did. This does not mean that it became so complex by chance, but by minute changes in animals and plants over long periods of time which gave one a slight advantage over another in the ability to find a mate and pass on its genes.<br />
<br />
As for the origin of life, another experiment this week has pointed towards how that might have occurred:...<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?ref=global-home">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?ref=global-home</a> There are five logical fallac…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-05-18:1982180:Comment:1007272009-05-18T07:24:27.163ZAtheist Ninjahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/IanHallquist
There are five logical fallacies of God's existence that are insubstantial -- meaning as you know that they can be independently laughed at by anyone.<br />
<br />
1.) Bare assertion fallacy<br />
2.) Argumentum ad populum<br />
3.) fallacy of composition<br />
4.) Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem<br />
5.) All of the above, as well as appeal to emotion
There are five logical fallacies of God's existence that are insubstantial -- meaning as you know that they can be independently laughed at by anyone.<br />
<br />
1.) Bare assertion fallacy<br />
2.) Argumentum ad populum<br />
3.) fallacy of composition<br />
4.) Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem<br />
5.) All of the above, as well as appeal to emotion